[PC-NCSG] Fwd: Comments Requested: Draft 2012-2015 Strategic Plan

[William Drake]

Anyone care about this either way?



Begin forwarded message:

> From: William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch>
> Date: November 7, 2011 10:53:38 AM GMT+01:00
> To: Evan Leibovitch <evan at telly.org>
> Cc: Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org>
> Subject: Re: Comments Requested: Draft 2012-2015 Strategic Plan
> 
> HI Evan
> 
> Thanks for the note.  A priori, since this doesn't particularly involve us, I'd guess that in the universe of things that concern NC enough to spend capital on. this is a rather distant star.  But I can pass it on to our policy committee and see if there's a different view?
> 
> Best,
> 
> Bill
> 
> On Nov 7, 2011, at 2:24 AM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
> 
>> 
>> Hey there.
>> 
>> I don't know if you or the NCSG may be interested, but I've forwarded a position I'm asking ALAC to consider, copied from something I sent to the At-Large mailing list. I'm very interested to know your POVs on this. Feedback so far has been positive.
>> 
>> - Evan
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> From: Evan Leibovitch <evan at telly.org>
>> Date: 5 November 2011 11:02
>> Subject: Re: Comments Requested: Draft 2012-2015 Strategic Plan
>> To: ALAC Working List <alac at atlarge-lists.icann.org>
>> 
>> 
>> In response to the call for comments on the ICANN Strategic Plan, I wish to advance the following position as ALAC advice:
>> 
>> Periodically, ICANN indulges itself in a re-evaluation of its Strategic Plan. There are presentations from senior staff, workshops, and a significant chunk of At-Large policy-making time allocated to this endeavour.
>> 
>> We submit that that this exercise is a massive waste of time and energy, not just on the part of At-Large but of all of ICANN. In fact, at this critical time (US Government contracts up for renewal, changes at both CEO and Board Chair, and increasing pressure from governments to scrap the whole multi-stakeholder experiment), such an energy consuming exercise in "navel-gazing" simply calls public attention to the extent of which ICANN is out of touch with the community it is supposed to serve. We submit that the abandonment of this charade of creating laminated "motherhood statements" and diversion of energies to matters more pressing is urgently called upon.
>> 
>> ICANN's role is well defined and its scope should be fairly focused. It strategic plan should need fine tuning at best -- and certainly not an overhaul of the kind being requested on a frequent and ongoing basis. That any broad changes are contemplated indicates either mission creep or capture -- or both. ICANN has never lived up to its aspirational "strategic" plans of the past, allowing staff rather than the community to really determine the priorities regardless of what the words say. Compounding the farce is the charging of this same staff with evaluating its own success. As a result, the community spends more time in endless reviews of the plan than in actually holding ICANN accountable for its execution.
>> 
>> We request that ICANN focus its resources -- and those of its volunteers -- on genuinely implementing the strategies it has already defined before repeatedly coming back to the community to engage in further rounds of self-absorbed distraction.
>> 
>> 
>> I have added this statement to the comment section of the appropriate At-Large wiki page. I wish to submit it for approval as a position of the At-Large Advisory Committee. Failing that, I would like to solicit support from community members in the submission of a minority position. I am certainly open to modification of the message to make it more broadly acceptable but I hope that the main point intended by the statement is reasonably unambiguous.
>> 
>> Note: I am doing this as an individual ALAC member, not as representing any existing position of my region or the ALAC Executive Committee to which I belong. A version of this statement has already been made to the NARALO mailing list, and during an ALAC teleconference briefing on the strategic plan.
>> 
>> Thank you for your consideration.
>> 
>> - Evan
>> 
>> 
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20111107/54d50d79/attachment.html>